Your Favorite President

[Imran Siddiqui]

The SDI was the main avenue for upping the ante, so that naturally would've been the Soviets' primary concern at such conferences.

Which was the goal of Reagan and the CIA Director.

In terms of actual spending, the response to the SDI simply wasn't that big relative to the military budget.

It did add pressures to it. SDI wasn't huge, but it increased the military budget to more than they wanted. But they had to do it to keep up.

but PR concerns were kind of less important during the time Gorby was in power - when the politburo knew he wasn't very pliant, compared to perestroika, etc. doing practically nothing in terms of toning down American policies towards the Soviets.

Taking him out as soon as he was put in (basically) would have looked desperate. At least by 1991, it may have looked better.

Don't overlook the rhetoric either. Reagan's speech at Moscow State University had a profound effect on the youth of that country. It is one of the most important speeches in US history, IMO (and even Democrats will admit that ).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
Because MrFun needs a scapegoat.

I love it when people make lame attempts to distort my arguments.

Reagan was only one of the number of people in position to do something about the early stage of the AIDS crisis. This includes some gay activists who opposed any changes with the bathouse services when such changes could have headed off wider spread of the disease.

Reagan shut his eyes to reality, in spite of the theoretical conclusion that some scientists produced through research.

[Dom Pedro II]

The Soviets KNEW they couldn't compete and KNEW they HAD to compete if the Americans went farther and farther along. That is why they were so concerned and always asked the Amis to stop doing it.

What I've always failed to understand about this argument is WHY? It's not like Reagan would have started war with the Soviets... even if we had a working SDI (which we didn't). Microwaving 150 million people isn't exactly the best to gain the public's support, and a conventional war taken to Soviet soil would be equally as stupid.

And as you said, it was the straw that broke the camel's back... which means that the camel was pretty overburdened in the first place. Regionalism was breaking out everywhere under Breznev, and his successors never really reined the peripheral territories back in. Gorby had to instute major reforms as a result of this distabilization that loosened the government hold on things... and of course, when you do that, you open the door for even further movement against the government in spite of placating some of the people. The Soviet Union was going down in flames. Gorbachev knew it, the Party knew it, and I'm sure the Reagan administration knew it. If it had not been for SDI, the Soviet Union might have collapsed one or two years later, but it was going down anyway.

Reagan had little more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than Clinton did with the booming economy in the 1990s.

[Defiant]

Thomas Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
TIE:Ronnie and George W.

And I will tell you this now Sava, kiss off!

[Dom Pedro II]

I'm just amazed that no one picked Coolidge (besides me) or Hoover!

I may have to change my vote to Hoover.

[Ramo]

Which was the goal of Reagan and the CIA Director.

Well, naturally given that they were a pair of militaristic psychos.

It did add pressures to it. SDI wasn't huge, but it increased the military budget to more than they wanted. But they had to do it to keep up.

Sure, a minor budget increase in the military adds pressures to the economy. But that's in terms of accelerating long-term economic decline. A hardliner could've kept a regime with a declining economy afloat indefinitely.

Hell, the horrendous military spending is what kept the Soviet economy afloat in the short term. When Gorby started to reverse the trend (despite Ronnie's provocations) by dismantling the military, the Soviet economy totally dissolved due to the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

Taking him out as soon as he was put in (basically) would have looked desperate.

Which they were. Look at the string of leaders in power between Brehznev and Gorby. I don't think it's unlikely that they'd decide to axe him as well.

Don't overlook the rhetoric either. Reagan's speech at Moscow State University had a profound effect on the youth of that country. It is one of the most important speeches in US history, IMO (and even Democrats will admit that ).

Sure, speech can be important. But if it's speech towards a wrongly or incompetently percieved goal, that makes it pretty much irrelevent.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

1790-1877: Thomas Jefferson
1877-1945: Teddy Roosevelt
1945-present: Harry Truman (Personally, I'm iffy about implying that any of the post-WWII guys was any good...)

Worst:

1790-1877: James Buchanan
1877-1945: Warren Harding. ("I am a man of limited talents from a small town. I don't seem to realize that I am president." Woodrow Wilson and Benjamin Harrison are tied for second worst in my book.)
1945-present: Gerald Ford. Or Jimmy Carter, for that matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo, ask many Russians who listened to that speech, and they can tell you the impact it had. It's a fabulous speech delievered wonderfully. Not dealing with Russia, but an anecdote I like is when Reagan spoke in China and made this really great speech about free markerts and democracy. An American reporter was standing next to a young Chinese individual, when the person's eyes went wide and he turned to the reporter. He pointed to Reagan and say "He good Yankieman". Hehe.

The power of rhetoric is very, very strong. That combined with hardline policies was the show the USSR that the US was not going to back down.

You have to remember that by the late 70s, the US was looking down and out. It was the low point for the country since 1945. Reagan comes in, say we aren't done yet. Beefs up the military, talks tough, and most important is incredibly optimistic (which is learned from FDR), and projects strength.

YES, it WAS a huge gamble, but it paid off in the end. If it failed and a hardliner took over in 1991, then you could easily say it failed, but it was worth taking. As FDR (A president I admire very much) said (paraphrasing) even if it doesn't work, you have to try something.

And of course, as you know, the guy who is most well renown for being a hardliner CAN reach out to the side without being pummeled for it. Which is why NO ONE dared to call Eisenhower soft on communism (which they would have called someone who had done what he did without the 'stars'). Reagan was able to go over the Moscow, was able to go to meet Gorby so much, and be friendly with him, because people knew that he was such an anti-communist. The Great Communicator didn't let political ideology get in the way of friendship . And if you are friends with the leader of the USSR, but hate the system, you may have better influence, wouldn't you think?

Who knows, if we followed detente, In my opinion, Gorby probably wouldn't have gotten elected, and we probably still would have a USSR here, though vastly weakened (some might not say that was such a bad idea though).

I DO think that SDI's main benefit was the problems that it would lead to in the future of the USSR. Gorby saw this and so did many other leaders of the poliburo. If a hardliner took over in 1991, the massive increases he'd have to put into SDI (to match our massive amounts) would have killed it. Without SDI, I don't think the USSR ends up as weak as it did in 1989 or 1991.

And Dom, I actually do think Clinton's switcheroo in 1995 (when the Republicans swept in) did help the economy. He indicated he wouldn't mess around in it again, and backing welfare reform, etc., helped as well. He changed from 'socialist health care' Bill to 'pro-business' Bill. Psychologically that had an impact, I think.

[Lord Merciless]

My Favorites:
George Washinton,
Abe Lincoln,
FDR,
Ronald Reagan,
Bill Clinton.

My despised ones:
James Buchanan,
Benjamin Harrison,
Warren Harding,
Jimmy Carter.